User talk:Greyshark09/Archive 2

Hi

I have to admit I was enjoying our Heraclian cooperation - I am happy to go ahead and do the work as you suggested, but I want to finish the Dem-of-Pal name debate first. I may have been overeager, but it felt like we had a pretty good rough consensus already for the move, and after all it was a very minor and uncontroversial improvement to the name. I understand that you feel I undermined your proposal, and I admit I was following the advice here WP:SNOWBALL - I simply think you have no chance at all of getting your proposal through. Having said that, I felt that my move did not close your proposal (I did not remove your tag for that reason) and you could perfectly well have continued the debate for a further name change if you wanted to. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a good cooperation on Heraclius revolt, lets keep it on. However, i must decline your actions on the Demographics of Palestine issue. First of all, what you did in the first place was not legal according to WP:MOVE, and the issue cannot be concluded as WP:SNOWBALL. This article exists for a long time - thus you cannot base your decision that its existance or title is non-sense. Hence, its not clear (for you and one more person = only 2 people), and you can not do as you wish. Palestine issue has a huge range of views - we already have three different opinions since my proposal. Your second action today doesn't apply to WP:MOVE either, since you cannot put more than one suggestion of rename at a time. I'm asking you to undo your last edits on the page (double rename-move suggestion) and get back to original. I have no hard feelings about it - just wait until January 25th, when I conclude the opinions (i give it a week since publishment of rename-move proposal, since the article doesn't have a large number of editors). If no consensus is made on my proposal then we turn to yours, and see if you get consensus.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK guess I'll just have to be patient. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I closed the current discussion with No concensus, though i found out even my procedure wasn't full as wiki laws require. It is quiet complicated process to change a page name. If you still wanna go on your proposal i can guide you how to do it.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice new additions

Tripoli pogrom, Benjamin of Tiberias and Nechemiah are very intersting, thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanx, i will start several articles soon, and you are welcome to contribute. i'm mainly focusing on the period of Jewish-Roman Wars, Byzantine period and modern conflicts in the Middle East.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I currently switch from Jewish-Roman wars topic to Old Yishuv and Ottoman Syria. A fascinating period!Greyshark09 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Middle East conflict

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Template:Middle East conflict, as prod cannot be used on templates. I copied your deletion rationale to the appropriate forum, which is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. The discussion for this particular template may be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 14. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the professional help.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements‎

Please stop edit-warring and discuss your concerns on the template's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, i thought i deleted some unrelated information, but apparently this is WP:OR by the user AndresHerutJaim. I'm not interested in any engagements against original research POV pushers, but vandalists.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

List of conflicts in the Middle East

Before you continue editing this list, I suggest you give a careful read to the WP:LIST. Also, can I suggest that you discuss other people's editing before you revert. Throwing assumptions at me is not going to win you any brownie pointsKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan War and BBC geographical confusion

Hey, Greyshark09 and thank you for your feedback! Forgive my lack of correct technical Wiki coding here and elsewhere, as I am completely green to editing this lexicon - however not with basic html code.

Quote from Greyshark09 on Dreamsharer's talk: You have recently inserted information to page List of modern conflicts in the Middle East about conflict - 2011- UN intervention in Libya during civil unrest, which is located in modern Libya. Please notice, that Libya is not located in the Middle East, according to following definition: "Middle East" is traditionally defined as the Fertile Crescent and near surroundings from Egypt and Turkey in the West to Iran at the East.[1] I would herewith ask you to transfer this conflict to a more appropriate page named List of conflicts in the Maghreb (North Africa). Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the exact same thing, Greyshark09, but there are many problems suddenly emerging. First of all, Libya is already mentioned at least two times in the same list of conflicts, as being connected with both the Egyptian-Libyan war of the 70s and the 'Middle East Protests' in 2010-2011. Even in newsmedia, the country is presented as connected with 'the Middle East'. The big question is: 'How far West is the East?'

Take the major broadcaster BBC as an example. BBC mentiones Libya as both part of the Middle East and of Africa.

BBC News - Middle East: Libya

BBC News - Africa: Libya

BBC actually redirects the reader from the Middle East category and the headline: 'Gaddafi vows 'long war' in Libya' to the African category for the actual story.

There is yet another problem. Since newsmedia such as BBC have used the term 'Middle East' for the larger 'Arab world' for a long time, we have a popular reference problem. People might not find the answers they are looking for. Maybe we have to refer to other places. I added the Libya conflict to the list because I, as a 'modern reader', automatically thought it to be in the Middle East. But as I said, I thought about it since, and until you wrote the feedback on my talk page, Greyshark09.

CNN solves the Libya geographical problem in another way by simply merging the Middle East and Africa categories into one mutual category.

Maybe we have to clarify in text and link to several pages to help people find what they are looking for. I know for sure I wouldn't look for 'Maghreb' if I was looking for info on Libya. Most people will most likely never know that is the correct term anyway. And also 'the Middle East' category, more than the 'North Africa' category, would be a natural place for me as a 'confused news reader' to start looking for quick info on this matter.

What is your suggestion?

I think it should be simple - we should use scholar definition, not definition by news agency - who are not experts on geography. According to wikipedia, news are a good source for events, but should not be relied upon as "trusted sources" on professional issues (such as Physics, Chemistry, Geography, History), unless no other professional sources are available. News agencies sometimes use "Wide Middle East" concept (including North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan), which is very much artificial and rarely used in professional debate. Middle East is bound with the historic Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia, Levant and Egypt) and immidiately neighbouring geographic areas (Cyprus, Anatolia, Iran and Arabia). Also do not confuse Middle East with Arab World, which is identified with Arab League, whereas Middle Eastern countries Turkey, Iran, Cyprus and Israel are not part of it. I have provided you the source for proper definition of Middle East by scholar, though of course other opinions exist in academy.

Libya is already listed in List of modern conflicts in the Middle East, because Libyan-Egyptian war was on the border of Egypt, which is certainly part of the Middle East (by classic definition). Wars on the borders of Middle East certainly should be included, such as Turkish War of Independence, which was fought against Armenia and Greece.

As you have mentioned, someone did recently put 2011 Protests in the list - a problematic issue, since these protests have spread beyond Middle East, and even beyond North Africa. We have a similar situation with World Wars - an issue solved by describing "Middle Eastern theatre of World War ...". It is one possible solution here - to subdivide 2011 protests to Middle Eastern, North African, and East African. However, in my opinion it is better to mention local event for each country, as the conflict background is very different for each location, even though they are called altogether "2011 protests".

Therefore, in my opinion, only "2011 Egyptian Revolution" is relevant to the list as Middle Eastern conflict with more than 100 casualties (inter-Egyptian politic struggle), whereas Yemen (Sunni-Shia and internal politic tensions) and Bahrain (Sunni-Shia conflict) might join the list in the future. North African events in Tunisia and Libya are very much redundant to the list, as much as Sudan and other African countries.

Regarding clarification to reader - i think you are right! We should change "Maghreb" to "North Africa" (meaning instead of "List of conflicts in the Maghreb" it should be "List of modern conflicts in North Africa"), since it is a much more familiar concept. Would you like to do it yourself according to WP:SNOWBALL policy, or i shall do it?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Greyshark09! Dreamsharer talking. Snowball or not, hehe, I prefer you do such changes if you would be so kind. You definetly got more know-how than me to do so. But how about 'North Africa / Maghreb' or North Africa (main category) + Maghreb (sub-category)? It would be a shame to lose the term completely, fighting to maintain a high lexicon standard, here...?

See this new debate I posted on Wikifan12345's talk page - the author of the original list of modern conflicts in the Middle East.

Also, thanks to you and/or the Wiki system for the signature tip! :-) Dreamsharer (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dreamsharer, you should not worry about loosing the term, since after the rename, the older title List of conflicts in the Maghreb would redirect to List of modern conflicts in North Africa. In addition, i would add it to the WP:LEAD. Regarding your discussion with Wikifun12345 - me and him have maintained a full understanding regarding definition of Middle East until now, but you are welcome to ask his opinion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark09, I think you're right about the 'modern conflict' - concept being more familiar. I think the newest change does good to the total picture and makes it all become more cohesive. Keep up the good work! :-)

I deleted Libya from Wikifan's Middle East list for now. I'm not quite satisfied with the popular culture definition. And it is quite possible to find the info in the North African category, if one uses one's imaginastion - a little bit and/or if spesific suggestions & links are made, somehow.

Moreover, I renamed the reference in the 'See also' section of Wikifan's list to 'List of modern conflics in North Africa' and added a free text '(the Maghreb region)' behind the reference. (See also: List of modern conflics in North Africa (the Maghreb region).)

One more thing about the cohesiveness. I've always liked those Wikifan-style-tables for such info, with flags, numbers and all of that, orderly fashioned in rows and columns. At least as short, 'punch-line'-type extra info to break up longer texts. Those endless lists of text, that in fact are informative, don't appear to be so informative, ironically, because they are not as visual. Or 'short-glimpsed'. You probably get my point... I see this phenomenon in the African conflicts list even more than in the North Africa / Maghreb list, since the African list contains very much more info that, sadly, make it confusing. I wonder if the table style would do the reader good, in both of the webpage lists, from a visual design point of view.

Dreamsharer (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the text-rich format in lists is confusing, and actually undermines the entire list purpose. If you like you can begin to transform the List of modern conflicts in North Africa into another visual list, with much more data and less text. I can assist you on this, since i have already thought of doing it. Such visual list would bring a great deal of order for people who use wikipedia. By the way you can notice the current list is very short, and this is not because North Africa is a peaceful place, but rather lack of inserted information. Doing some research from trusted sources on modern history of North Africa would add a lot of conflicts there.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the test list at List of modern conflicts in North Africa. See how much more agreeable it is with the eye. ;-) I guess that the easy stuff is to copy, edit and paste the code - and that the hard stuff is tracking down all the various info and references... Dreamsharer (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dreamsharer, you did a nice preliminary work, however it is not legal to make "test list" on a visible official wikipedia page. For this purpose of trial and error while learning, you should make a "test list" on you "sandbox" page here - User:Dreamsharer/Sandbox.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. I just found out 'the Maghreb region' is a quite narrow term. It seems Maghreb comprises only 5-6 countries. Maybe we should rethink our approach to this matter... but how? Mixing it now confuses me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb: Maghreb is an Arabic word which means "place of sunset" derived from Gharb "the West".[3] Following North Africa and Hispania, the term included Andalusia, Sicily, and Malta. Before the establishment of modern nation states in the region in the 20th century, Maghreb referred to a smaller area between the Atlas Mountains range in the south and the Mediterranean Sea, eastern Libya, but not modern Mauritania. As recently as late 19th century it was used to refer to Western Mediterranean region in general, and Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia in particular.[4] In modern history Maghreb refers to the five North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Mauritania, plus the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Dreamsharer (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Meybe you are aware - but put your attention that you ar using a wikipedia quote, which is not a source. You should find a proper definition for north africa/Maghreb in leterature (not news, or unprofessional website) and go with this by defining it in the lead. In addition, i left you a message on Talk:List of modern conflicts in North Africa page.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Middle East and Arab world geographical confusion (Greyshark09's copy of Wikifan12345 talk)

It is true that Albert Habib Hourani (or one of his co-writers), in 1993, says on page 2 in the book 'The Modern Middle East: a reader' , that you (Wikifan12345) quoted, that: 'For the purposes of this book, the 'Middle East' is regarded as including the area covered by what are now the states of Turkey, Iran and Israel, and the Arab states from Egypt eastwards.' However, let's take a closer look at the continuation and how the author himself explaines the troublesome nature of this definition: 'This definition, like all such definitions is to some extent arbitrary.' In fact, he states that: 'It would have been possible to look westwards from Egypt to the Arab countries of North Africa, or eastwards from Iran to Afghanistan' (...as a former non-editing-Wiki reader, I wondered why that major US/UN involvement wasn't there, by the way - Dreamsharer's comment..) 'and south Asia, or westwards again from Turkey to those parts of south-eastern Europe which for so long formed part of the Ottoman or 'Turkish' Empire.'

I think there is a very thin line seperating 'the Middle East' term and 'the Arab World' term in the mutual & common understanding.

If this geographical definition is a problem to the professionals on the topic, it undoubtedly is an even greater problem to common people. And as a result, ordinary people (such as I) automatically think that the Middle East and the Arab World are the same. My intentions with this debate, is to try and find ways to how we can help ordinary people find relevant things on this topic on Wikipedia. Those are probably the main users anyway, not the pro's. And even the pro's seem to have trouble narrowing it down or defining it properly. Best regards. Dreamsharer (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Dreamsharer. (Former: 'Middle East and Arab world geographical confusion'.) As Wikifan12345 has told me he is under a comprehensive ban on Arab-Israeli conflicts, I see no point in pursuing this matter any further and so I delete the entire case. Dreamsharer (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What deleted case are we talking about? It is not adviced to delete discussions, but to finish them.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Good news on Safed 1660 "keep". Worth adding notable attacks on the Yishuv, to the Y. Hayashan template? Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly a keep, we rather found more credible sources and the information was changed accordingly (now it is a "1660 destruction of Safed"). I'm not in favor of adding specifically vilent events, but maybe key events - like 1660 attacks in Galilee, 1834 Revolt, major earthquakes and major events like re-establishment of Tiberias. Also i think it is better to specify Jewish communities (cities like Tiberias, Safed, Acco, Shefaram, Hebron, Jerusalem, Gaza, Ramle etc.) in "communities" section instead of general Jewish denominations (Perushim, Hasidim, Sepharadim, and Mista'arbim which is missing by the way).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We can add any events that impacted on the yishuv. Towns with a significant J pop. can be added under communites, and only pages about actual sects in EY should be included under "groups" or something. Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. Please make some edits you think are needed, i will work on the related articles in the coming weeks. BTW, Do you read square Aramaic writing?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. What word? Chesdovi (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to know the time window of the Old Yishuv? I thought it was a general term for entire period between Arab conquest in 7th century until 20th century, but apparently i saw it being placed between 18th to early 20th century. Which is right?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

One thinks of it in terms of the more recent centuries, rather than referring to the post Roman community, however: Israeli society: Volume 1967, Part 2 Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt - 1967: "Historically, the Old Yishuv goes back to remote antiquity as, with the exception of two centuries of Crusader domination, Palestine always had a Jewish population. The immigrations beginning in the thirteenth century with the disintegration of the Frankish kingdoms set the pattern for the Old Yishuv as it appeared in the ensuing centuries...". Where was it placed? Chesdovi (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey

Hey, it's getting pretty lonely being the main editor over at 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey, especially considering the rash of vandalism to the page. It's pretty much an orphan page right now, too, with that dispute over adding it to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page still pending. I don't suppose I could prevail upon you to just check in there periodically and give me a hand with editing, revising, etc.? Keep an eye out for news updates and whatnot, too, if you could...cheers! -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm already keeping some eye on it (i was the one who renamed it to "2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey" from "2011 Kurdish Revolution"), but i'm not really interested in real time articles. My interest in regard to this page was solely because of my interest in Middle Eastern history, where i'm active on articles of 20th century history of the Kurds. I would certainly help if things are getting out of hand.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 Ahwazi unrest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 Ahwazi unrest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at its deletion discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Formal Warning - Personal attacks

You need to cease and desist with your personal attacks against me. This will be your one and last warning. WP:PERSONAL clearly states that you should only "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "personal attacks,... based on nationality of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block". You're clearly in violation of both clauses of this policy by making comments about me as oppose to the content in dispute, nationality-based comments like "Kurdo and his Persian friends" etc . If you persist, you will be reported and blocked. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you can finally answer me (though in a form of warning). I wonder how "Kurdo and his Persian friends" insults you and personally hurts your feelings, especially if you are indeed members of wikiproject Iran. I can remove that if you like, but note i have no interest in attacks, edit-warring and similar offensive actions - i'm here to improve wikipedia, and i'm really sad you have not been able to communicate on the issue of Ahwazi unrest article. If speaking on warnings - your actions in regard to Ahwaz related information on wikipedia will ban you from further editing, if reported. Feel free to make a civil conversation with me instead of threats anytime you like. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1947 Manama pogrom

Nice new addition. Chesdovi (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice effort on the "1948 War attacks" template. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Hi Greyshark09. How are you? The closing admin has given the editors the green light to merge 2005 unrest page into Khūzestān Province. [1] However, if you, as the creator of the page, and per your own comment here [2], and per our policy on common names (ie Ahvaz), go ahead and move the page yourself to "2005 Ahvaz riots" in good faith and as a sign of compromise and constructive collaboration, I will neither realist the page for RM nor pursue the merging matter any further. How does that sound to you? Kurdo777 (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Kurdo. I didn't interpritate the admin's suggestion as a green light to merge, but rather that he understood the rename proposal was out of consensus as many suggested to merge, and others opposed - he said "So if merging, the page could just be turned into a redirect. Also, contrary to your interpretation, I felt that the opposing comments had enough weight to merit a no-move". Currently, i see an ongoing vote on merge proposal of 2005 Ahwazi unrest page. Hence, we probably should not intervene in this merge proposal vote, until closed (unless you want to convince Alborz to annulize it). When merge proposal is closed (if not agreed to merge) - i completely agree to change it to "2005 Ahvaz unrest", in agreement with WP:COMMONNAME and to get consensus with you (there are 5 reliable sources saying "Ahvaz unrest", 3 saying "Ahwazi unrest", 1 saying "Khuzestan unrest" and also additional minor variants saying "protest", "intifada" and others).

Finally, i'm glad we have a civil conversation, and i hope we would get a good faith between us. I want to assure you that i have no specific interest in supporting any POV side in Ahvaz problem, and actually i'm active in covering most conflicts across the Middle East, regardless of who is involved. My main interest is proper coverage of modern history, according to reliable sources and notability. My main interest right now is Saudi Arabian, Iraqi and Syrian history through 20th century. Have a nice weekend.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"2005 Ahvaz protest" is fine with me, but "intifada" or "uprising" are a bit loaded/POVish, and would exaggerate the magnitude of the event. If possible, go ahead of and rename the page now, it won't intervene with anything, and merger requests are informal and never "closed". I'm sure if you take the initiative (be WP:Bold) in good faith, the merger request will also die down as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Since i found another extensive academic work on the issue, I will post a fair comparison of all the sources for WP:COMMONNAME, in order to cancel further rename demands and find a consensus. So let's continue this debate on the article page discussion, having a good perspective on all the sources. I'm sure we will reach a goodfaith agreement an continue a civil discussion. Thanx.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"2005 Ahvaz unrest" is fine with me, you can move it there. By the way, one thing you should keep in mind when using sources, is that when you use Amnesty International or other Human Rights groups as a source, you should always attribute the statements to the source and use quotation marks for such claims and statements. This is the standard practice on Wikipedia, since this type of Human rights organizations, rely heavily on "he said, she said" by partisan activist groups with their own agendas. For example, loaded terms like "Arab persecution" are not neutral undisputed facts. This is similar terminology to "Arab apartheid" or other loaded terms these groups use for Israel. Such language is not encyclopedic and should be avoided in Wikipedia, and all claims and statements by Human rights groups should be clearly attributed to the source, like Amnesty has stated that: "_____". Also, please be mindful of WP:WEIGHT, as Human rights reports etc should be not be given too much weight, two or three quotations on a topic are sufficient , unless the page is exclusively about Human rights, a page like Human rights in Syria for example. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. i will add "according to ..." - this is true that Amnesty should not be given too much wight, especially as we now have academic level sources (i would later try to use them instead).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits. It's a violation of WP:Undue and WP:LEAD, as we don't quote Amnesty or any other group in the lead of an article, or give weight to the spokesperson of a fringe militant group for casualties. We also don't cite sources in the lead, as lead is a summary of the article. So I would really appreciate it, if in the spirit of the positive constructive cooperation we've recently had, which has avoided edit-wars and hostile arguments, you reverted yourself, and proposed the changes in question on the talk page for further discussion and a consensus before implementing them, one step at a time. Thanks. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, i shall remove human rights from the lead, you are correct. I don't see a special use for Amnesty, thus i will use academic sources and media agencies.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Failaka

can you check this article --Σύμμαχος (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems a translation from the Arabic version (which is a sourced article) - a small battle during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I shall take a deeper look later.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, though more sources needed.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Syrian uprising

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Template:Syrian uprising, as per policy templates cannot be prodded. Since it is redundant with Template:Campaignbox Syrian uprising, I have gone ahead and redirected there. If you still wish to pursue deletion, TFD is the only way to go. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No specific need for deletion - it works well now. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aramaean identity

The identification with an "Aramean identity" is particularly strong among some western Syriacs (those who follow the West Syrian Rite) since the identification with the ancient Arameans was visible in early Syriac Christian sources. I have to disagree with you however that it was not only common among people in western Syria, in fact many Aramaic speaking people were simply called Arameans (one exampe is Bardaisan who have his roots in Adiabene). Bottom line: identification with Assyrian, Aramaean or Syriac is simply a matter of personal taste. I know this from my own experience since many people within my family would self-identify as any of the above mentioned names, they would even engage fierce debates in defense of it when needed. The point that they (or I) would try to prove is that this is the name we should use because... I would gladly answer any more questions if you still have any.--Rafy talk 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rafy, i would like to have more reading on it sometime, and it is also good to learn from you as a primary source.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rosetta Barnstar

Thank you. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

ChasteRoue

Any relationship between you and this editor? I noticed that you both like to make articles on pogroms in Arab countries, and he made his contributions on days when your account appears to have been slightly less active than usual. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but thank you for the introduction.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Second thought, found him familiar - i participated in efforts to fix his mess on the Ottoman period issues, namely 1660 and 1834 events in the Galilee. Seems he has retired by now (lucky for us).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, cool. Just wanted to make sure that this was/had been declared somewhere if it happened to be an alternative account, since you seem to be making useful contributions and that sort of thing can trip one up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can always check a good conspiracy theory of sockpuppeting by submitting a request for "suckpuppet investigations".Greyshark09 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No reason to do so since you've stated you're not the same account (and since the other account is dormant and doesn't appear to have racked up any blocks or bans). Except in cases where the sockpuppetry is both obvious and disruptive (like this one I did recently) I think it's a good idea to ask first. I certainly haven't got much in the way of evidence on this one, anyway, so it would just have blown up in my face and made me look stupid. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good one! Quran miracles huh.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Non-sovereign territories templates

Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maronites?

Hi, are you still thinking about creating a separate article for Maronites?--Rafy talk 13:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not do it by myself, but if you are into this, i would help splitting it from "Maronite Church".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK great, I'm just thinking out loud hear: a stub is obviously not worthy of a split so we should at least have a +20K to start with. The Arabic Maronite church article and the Mount Lebanon Mutasarifate both have a great section over history. I think a will start a draft at my user space in a couple of weeks. Any help will be appreciated.

Sure, tell me when you begin and give a link to appropriate user space. We can also add much info from "Arab Christians", which is still has much info on Maronites - i think it will do the final "independence" of Arab Christians article, instead of being a hashing of various articles and political propaganda.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you seem to have great interest in middle eastern politics, from which country do you come originally (obviously Israel now :)). Just ignore my question if it's too personal.--Rafy talk 22:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all - i despise politics and think that people who like politics don't understand anything about this world (real world). I'm interested in Middle Eastern history - mainly classic antiquity, Ottoman period and the Post Ottoman period conflicts. I also did some currently related edits on the Arab Spring, but that is less important. I'm originally Galilean by country, ethnically being from the Semitic branch of Arpaxad, like the Samaritans, Jews and Ismaelites.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, so you're a Palestenian Jew. Maybe it's because of your interest in Maronites but I also thought you would be a Lebanese Jew. Anyway thanks for your reply. I will start the Maronites article in a couple of weeks since I'm busy these days.--Rafy talk 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Jew (or Judean), if you couldn't have figured it out already - I'm Israelite however, and like Jews we practice Mosaic faith (In fact prophet Moses was from my people, not Judeans). And pls don't stick Arab nationalism into our converation - respect and be respected. In the Galilee many people, like Circassians; Jews; Bedouin, Fellakhin and Christian Ghassanid Arabs; Maronites; Turkmen; Kurds; Iranian Bahai and Druze live together in relative quiet, so trying to impose nationalities and ethnicities is not nice, try how it feels if i called you a Kurdish or Arab Christian.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't intend on showing any disrespect. I didn't mean Jew in a religious sense since many are not. Also if you live in Israel and Arabic isn't you mother tongue then this would narrow the other options considerably. Again I'm sorry to have caused any discomfort. Regards.--Rafy talk 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, i wasn't offended - you are not the first to use Palestinian Jew term, but we consider ourselves neither of those. As i've already said my people as well as Samaritans (tribe of Joseph) are Israelites from Arphaxad branch, but we are both not Jews (Judeans) in the ethnic sense. We all however practice the Mosaic faith, which is largely known for its Jewish version as "Judaism", because Jews are much more numerable, but that is not exactly correct for Samaritans and Levites (of course for the secular Jews and Levites the religion tagging as "Jewish" or "Mosaic" is meaningless). Samaritans will be very much upset if you call their faith Judaism, for Levites it is less significant. In the ancient times my people were dispersed among the northern and southern kingdoms known as Israel/Samaria and Judah, being priests and warriors - there are Levites of the Northern Temple (Grizim) living along Samaritans and Levites of the Southern Temple (Jerusalem) living along the Jews - the segregation is still kept traditionally. I would say that separation between Levites, Samaritans and Jews is somehow similar to segregation of Arameans, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Arabic btw is my fourth language or so, i'm practicing it with two of my Arab Christian collegues.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no ideas that Israelites still retain their ancient tribal affiliations. I did know about the historical "animosity" between Samaritan and Jews, however, the likelihood a random inhabitant of Israel being of Samaritan origin is very small since they form an extremely small minority mostly in PLO controlled territory. BTW, you can always come to me if you have questions regarding Arabic. I humbly consider my Arabic more advanced than most native speakers .--Rafy talk 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Samaritans are indeed a very small community today - less than a 1,000. Once they were constituing 3 Israelite tribes, who kept their traditional segregation (Joseph, Benjamin and Levi), but in the 19th century their largest community in Damascus was massacred by Muslims, and even the Nablus community was hardly spared with Jewish and international efforts against the intent of Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, who considered them kuffars, thus the Benjamin tribe came extinct among them. Most of Samaritans - about 400 live today in Holon (near Tel Aviv), the rest 350 live near Nablus (Neapolis in Latin, turned to Nablus in Arabic, but originally Shechem in Canaanite/Hebrew), within Israeli controlled enclave, but holding Palestinian IDs. Benjamin tribe was also mixed into Jews, but unlike Levites, they lost the segregation tradition. The Kurdish Jews however hold the tradition that originally they were mostly of Benjamin tribe, later mixed with Judah, but still call themselves "Jews" not "Benjaminites". I guess a similar mixup is found among the Syriac communities, and indeed you can teach me a lot on this. Update me on the Maronites - i'm waiting forward to make an order in this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought - why don't we start editing the Maronite Church page, adding more info on Maronites, and preparing segregation of the pages? This way we don't need to "push" split, which might be opposed by some wikipedians, due to lack of material, and still prepate the ground for such split, while improving the wikipedia article (no need to start a sandbox template). What do you say?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I will start working on this tomorrow.--Rafy talk 16:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, i will join.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Started the edits - i did split the template to "Maronite church" and "Maronite people". Something strange however i noticed on Lebanese people page - for some reason Lebanon, which exists less than 100 years includes Maronites from ages ago.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Same with Syrian people and Iraqi people even though those states were established in the 20th century they still include figures such as Hammurabi and Philip the Arab.--Rafy talk 11:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CE

It says somewhere in wp:mos that in scientific articles and in judiasm-related articles it is common to use CE instead of AD. I mention it because I saw you simply removed AD. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, WP:DATE says that we can use either CE (common era) or AD (Birth of Jesus - Christian definition), depends on agreement among editors for any specific article. Naturally, in articles related to non-Christian peoples, there usually will be no consensus for AD, thus CE is preferred. This is the case for Jewish-Roman wars' articles. Specifically, in the Bar-Kokhba revolt, we are speaking of events in the scope of common era (2nd century), thus we can skip CE, or use it (there are no events in the article, which were BCE). Of course we need to be consistent, so you may make all the dates in CE format, or delete all CE, as you wish.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the rule I was referring to. Personally I would not remove CE, because I find it looks sloppy to have a year bungling around without a qualifier (AD or CE, or BC or BCE). Debresser (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

in this period it's necessary to have the era specified, especially in the lede, and since it relates to a Jewish topic CE is the better (and CE is already used in the article) . It's clear to anyone who already knows the history that it's CE not BCE, but but Wikipedia is not written for people who already know the subject. its appropriate to provide that amount of identification. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Barnstar of National Merit

		Syrian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded for contribution to WikiProject Syria, with thanks and gratitude from myself and the thousands of displaced Syrian unfortunates whose plight you’ve highlighted following the 2011 Syrian uprising against tyranny. Well done! Chesdovi (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Barnstar of National Merit

		The Libya Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded with thanks and gratitude from myself and the hundreds of thousands of displaced Libyan unfortunates whose plight you’ve highlighed following the 2011 Libyan uprising against tyranny. Well done! Chesdovi (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

UN warning over 12 million stateless people

[3], [4]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

160 killed in Turkey's latest strike

[5]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i know of this issue. Wikifan12345 updates this conflict i think. Check this here August 2011 Turkey-Iraq cross-border raid.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Palestine

Hi, Please make your case for SYTH on the talk page of the article. I think it is far from obvious. Thanks. Zero^talk 02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Know German?

Gerhard Höpp researched Arab nationalism extensively and documented al-Husseini's speech during his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, "Not for the sake of Ali but for the hatred of Mu'awiyah." If you know German, direct your browser to this page. Searching "Husseini" there will lead you to some interesting stuff.—Biosketch (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My German is only on google-translator level, even though it highly resembles English. I'm a Semitic group language speaker, rather than Indo-European group.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

It was great working with you at modern conflicts in the middle east. see ya grey. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I just thought I'd let you know that I say your article 2011 Iran-Iraq cross-border raids in the New Articles list--Jipinghe (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the invitation to participate in the proposed merger of the two Israeli/Palestinian conflict articles. I'm honoured, but nevertheless I'll decline - I'm withdrawing from Wikipedia.

If it's of any help, I'll offer this comment: wherever possible, articles should be combined. Sometimes of course it's not possible, but the preferred course should be to do so. On these two articles, the concept of violence in the I/P conflict, it seems to me, is a subsect of the larger whole, which would presumably include such things as diplomatic initiatives, political developments, and other things. Anyway, good luck :)

PiCo (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pico, i sent notifications to all discussion participants of source and target pages (of last one year period), thus i have not chosen you specifically. Anyways, thank you for your kind comment, and thanks for your contribution to wikipedia, i remember we met on Levantine history articles a couple of times Finally, if you decide to come back - wikipedia always needs an improvement :)Greyshark09 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Merger of Isdud into Ashdod

Hi Greyshark09. Please take a look at llywrch's reply at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Merger of Isdud into Ashdod regarding Talk:Ashdod#Merge proposal. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question in Hebrew

How would you pronounce "אם קריאה", with full niqqud diacritics in Mizrachi, Em Qəryah or Em Qəry'ah? the comma represents a glottal stop here.--Rafy talk 00:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not my expertise to give a professional answer on this, but frankly, i don't think it is much correct to speak of any specific prenounsation as "Mizrahi". There is a distinctive Tiberian, Yemeni and Babylonian/Aramaic prenounsation. I think Tiberian would be Em Qeryah (like the modern Hebrew) while Yemeni would be Em Qery'ah, but again i'm not sure - modern Hebrew consolidated the dialects into a single one. I sometimes have a hummus at Yemenite mat'am, so i can ask them to say that and see how it sounds...Greyshark09 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I always thought Tiberian was identical to Mizrachi. Thanks anyway--Rafy talk 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading about Mizrahi Hebrew, it seems i was right - there is no such specific "Mizrahi" prenounsation, but it referes to a collection of Yemeni, Babylonian (Iraqi, Kurdish & Persian Jews) and even Sephardic (Turkish, Balkan, Maghrebi, Libyan and Egyptian Jewish communities) prenounsations.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq border clash

What I thought was that the 2010 Iran–Iraq border clash had mistakenly been included in the campaignbox, since the article itself doesn't mention PJAK once. But if it was during a pursuit of PJAK fighters, I think we can include it, since I have seen similar things in other conflicts. I don't really think the incident deserves it's own article, though.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a question of notability. I think that in regard to the PJAK conflict the conflict can be considered non-significant, so we may skip it in the campaignbox. However, it might have been notable due to the fact the clash occured between Iraq and Iran - a remarkably outstanding event by its own.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Butrus al-Bustani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Equality and Ibrahim Pasha

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Mohajirs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta'if massacre

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Ta'if massacre, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ta'if massacre. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I just wanted to thank you for your editing of Operation Yakhin. You really improved the article and made it look much more encyclopedic. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. Nice work creating this important article in the first place, it is very much contributing to the "Plitim" template.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I was actually quite taken aback that it was not created much earlier. But I guess everything has to start somewhere!Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some visual changes at your user page (flag sizes), since they looked too big. Feel free to revert me if you don't like it.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. It definitely looks much better. You have a real knack for getting big results out of little changes. Thanks again and keep up the good work your doing on Wikipedia.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mandaeanism

The first line of Abrahamic religions is "Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him" contrary to your understanding that it just implies relevance to these other religions.

The major common aspect between Abrahamic religions is, as described in the article, "The unifying characteristic of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is that all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham."

Just because they share some common prophets does not imply that they are even remotely similar, and this is idea is also justified when comparing the religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.8.90 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been having second thoughts on your revert, and frankly i don't mind to remove "Abrahamic Religions" from "Mandaeism".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued support on the page. There is a lack of (public) detail on Mandaeans and their faith so it is very welcomed to see active moderation and revision of the page. 61.8.8.90 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm soon going to split Mandaeans from Mandaeism (population section), you are welcome to assist developing it. BTW Why don't you have a permanent account?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to assist. I can also provide some photographs I've taken myself for the Wikipedia commons. I did have a perm account but I lost the password :/ I'll register a new one soon. 110.33.2.89 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Found my account. Let me know when (or even how) you would like to get started. I have never participated in group creations/edits like this. STEVENJ0HNS 1 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, the idea is to improve the article with more sources, and make a separate section on "Mandaeans today", which would eventually be split into a separate article "Mandaeans" (keeping only a summary in the original "Mandaeism" article). Now. we need to improve the sections about "Mandaeans in Iraq" and "Mandaeans in Iran", and add other Mandaean communities (in Jordan, Syria and diaspora).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited South Yemen Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ouster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)